Lamin Jobarteh, the defence counsel in the trial of a US-based Gambian female journalist, last Friday cross-examined Prosecution Witness 1. During the cross-examination, lawyer Jobarteh asked the witness as to how credible is his testimony already made in court.

In response PW1 said that the fourth paragraph of the particulars of offence, which reads “Gambians are desperately in need of an alternative to this egoistic frosty imam of APRC, Jammeh,” has the potential of invoking civil strife despite the fact that it has not caused any thing like it. The witness maintained that the name Jammeh could not be some body else, even though it bears no name in the afore-mentioned paragraph. He said the name Jammeh therein refers to His Excellency.

He further testified that after the publication of the article, a complaint was lodged at the NIA by two people, the names of whom he would not reveal, arguing that security is so sensitive that “you never want to reveal the names of anybody who might reveal valuable information to you.” The defence counsel at this juncture said that the information PW1 is hoarding is vital to their defence, noting that the name and identity of PW1 is strictly restricted from the general public. PW1 however argued that he is restricted by virtue of his position from mentioning names. He further said that the complaint has been recorded and investigated but said that he had to check in the library to enable him produce the records in court.

The proceeding became all the more intriguing when the witness appeared to submit contradictory statement with regard to his academic background. The defense counsel pointed to the incident as a mark of inconsistency in the evidence of the witness, tendering his academic certificates, which were accepted and marked as exhibit A and A1. PW1 however ascribed the differences in his evidence regarding his academic qualification to what he called a slip of the tongue. He also accepted flaws in the procedures of arrest and search conducted on the suspect, admitting that as a female, the suspect ought to have been searched by female officers.

Responding to the defence counsel’s statement that the accused requested for the service of legal practitioner, PW1 said: “I vividly remembered at that point the accused said she could not know whether to seek for the service of a lawyer or will she defend herself.” He said that he went further to obtain another statement from the accused because he had felt that some issues were left unaddressed after reading an alteration on the voluntary statement in which the accused partly said: “Till I consult a lawyer...” This, he said, denoted an initial attempt to refuse the accused access to the services of a legal practitioner.

The case was then adjourned to 22nd May 2007, for more cross-examination.